501 réponses à ce sujet

[Bahlgan]

Monica21 wrote...

Bahlgan, I really don't think you understand the concept of debate. Just because I understand a topic doesn't mean I approve of it. Just because I mention what your PC (and mine) did does not mean I'm personally attacking you. It's a debate. Seriously, step back, take a breath, and stop taking it personally.

I understand it just fine, I understand that people have disagreements far beyond the borders of reason, and have beliefs that no one can change. I understand the law of dominion, (not actually a named law) in which people don't enjoy being told what to do. I understand the term fallacy which is a false way of bringing up evidence to support one's certain reason of debate. This chaotic nature of humans happens all the time. Seems to be a lot of "stacking the deck" going around on these forums. The problem is this:  V

It does matter because your morals don't count. Your morals have nothing to do with how things work in Ferelden, nor do they have much to do with how things work in real life.

And for what it's worth, your PC has pretty flimsy morals. Your PC goes through the game slaughtering where it's necessary and holding back when it's necessary. Killing Howe in his home is murder. In the modern day, you are not judge, jury, and executioner.

You will have to forgive me if perhaps I sounded defensive in response to you telling me my Warden was flawed (which aren't they all? But, for that is exactly what your statement sounded like; something that I needed to defend against. Sounded as if you were shooting unorthodox slander at me. Again, if that is indeed NOT your intention, then I apologize.

But telling me that my Warden has flawed logic, at least to the point where it sounds insulting rather than in the "well you are not perfect" sense, IS offensive to me, for I base his actions off of my own agenda. The Warden is the embodiment of my own nature in a video game. Go figure, right?

Now, I presume we already have everything else (minus my perception on your last post) handled. Then I am moving on to a different one on here. Enjoy your posting.

[Giggles_Manically]

See above children!



Thats what we call a TROLL!

[MKDAWUSS]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
Or the honor guard who deserted was projecting his own insecurities onto Cailan and trying to assuage his guilt at leaving his King to die by convincing himself that Cailan knew the score.

He wasn't projecting. He said that is what Cailin told him, not what he thought the King felt.

He did not say that Cailan said the battle could not be won. He assumed that Cailan didn't think the battle could be won based on the fact that he gave him the key to the important chest. Wanting to make sure an important key is kept safe when you're going into battle =/= you know that you and everyone else is going to die.

Cailan's demeanor about glory, past victories, and the AD seems to suggest that Elric is referring to strawman Cailan.

But then again, RTO created so many inconsistencies...

[Bahlgan]

Not to mention the fact that if Loghain honestly was so certain that Ostagar was unwinnable, I find it odd that Ser Cauthrien can't see that and he can't convince Anora of it.

Yea, I too did not understand the logic behind Loghain's decision if he beleived that the beacon was lit too late. There seem to be several missing pieces to the puzzle despite that Gaider confirmed that he didn't intend on killing Arl Eamon through the poisoning, let alone "planning" the retreat from Ostagar (big disappointment to hear by the way).



Cailan was king, but I imagined he WOULD have listened to Anora or somebody, maybe one of his trusted guards, about not following through with Ostagar.. Unless Cailan DID plan on sacrificing his army to reduce the darkspawn numbers...

[Morroian]

Bahlgan wrote...
Yea, I too did not understand the logic behind Loghain's decision if he beleived that the beacon was lit too late. There seem to be several missing pieces to the puzzle despite that Gaider confirmed that he didn't intend on killing Arl Eamon through the poisoning, let alone "planning" the retreat from Ostagar (big disappointment to hear by the way).

Gaider said Ostagar wasn't pre-planned but he also said Loghain had it in his mind that he might have to do something of the sort. So the logic is still that Loghain committed treason and abandoned Cailan and the rest of the army because he felt that Ferelden was better off without Cailan as king, he just didn't entirely preplan it but more made the final decision on the spur of the moment.

[aaniadyen]

Wedger wrote...

I would debate that Cailan was doing what he thought was right for the country and not for himself.

He listened to his Dad's old friends too much. That seemed to be what got him in trouble.

Really? ...Huh, I always figured it was that ogre...

[Bahlgan]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

See above children!

Thats what we call a TROLL!

Defending myself from what I first thought to be a personal attack is what makes me a troll? Is there anything at all that you don't call a troll? Is it just something that you don't like that you call a troll? I think you do not know the meaning of the word.

The only thing that I have seen you do on this thread is call me a troll, for the most unwarranted of reasons might I add. I believe that due to your lack of commitment to this thread in anything other than bashing people for their beliefs makes you more of a troll than I am. Is there anything at all you have useful to add to the thread? Or am I to believe that you wish to resort to childish antics such as your poor usage of diction?

It really is too bad there is no ignore button on here. 

Gaider said Ostagar wasn't pre-planned but he also said Loghain had it in his mind that he might have to do something of the sort. So the logic is still that Loghain committed treason and abandoned Cailan and the rest of the army because he felt that Ferelden was better off without Cailan as king, he just didn't entirely preplan it but more made the final decision on the spur of the moment.

Yea, he did say that Loghain wasn't preplanning, that I understand now. But I was concerned about the missing pieces that I assumed due to the lack of devotion from others, Anora being one perhaps, as to trying to convince Cailan not to sacrifice himself. Does Gaider even confirm whether or not Cailan was intentionally throwing himself to the wolves in order to weaken and halt the darkspawn invasion?

Modifié par Bahlgan, 15 septembre 2010 - 10:06 .

[0mar]

It doesn't matter. Cailan is Loghain's lord and master. His word is law and should have been followed. Feredeln isn't a ****ing democracy, it's a monarchy. He rules by divine authority.

[Reika]

I really do think that since Loghain has no problems with mildly poisoning people, he could've just slipped something into Cailan's drink (since he seemed to be fond of drinking a good bit) to incapacitate him for a time. Heck, just give him an emetic on an off, while he's puking up his toenails he'll be too busy to mess with battleplans. Or much of anything for a bit.



Enough time to set things up properly.

[Giggles_Manically]

0mar wrote...

It doesn't matter. Cailan is Loghain's lord and master. His word is law and should have been followed. Feredeln isn't a ****ing democracy, it's a monarchy. He rules by divine authority.

Wrong on so many counts.

Fereldan is a proto democracy in many regards. As in the Freeholders picking their Bann. Banns, Teyrns, and Arl`s then pick the king.
Fereldan is not a ABSOLUTE MONARCHY in the style of say France was.

Calian had the support of the Bannorn, and the power of the Therin bloodline on his side. Not the maker.
In Ferldan a king is not god, and if he acted like that then the Bannorn stops supporting him.

Calian was a naive, glory bound fool who caused his own death.

[Sarah1281]

0mar wrote...

It doesn't matter. Cailan is Loghain's lord and master. His word is law and should have been followed. Feredeln isn't a ****ing democracy, it's a monarchy. He rules by divine authority.

I just love the obligatory 'Cailan is King and so if he wanted Loghain to march his men down one at a time for the darkspawn to eat then Loghain should have ****ing done it because that's how a monarchy works!' opinion.

Newsflash: It doesn't matter if it's a monarchy, a republic, a democracy, a whatever. Regardless of what Loghain should have done in this situation, you can't blindly follow your leader to the ends of the Earth. Sooner or later you have to draw a line.

[Giggles_Manically]

Reika wrote...

I really do think that since Loghain has no problems with mildly poisoning people, he could've just slipped something into Cailan's drink (since he seemed to be fond of drinking a good bit) to incapacitate him for a time. Heck, just give him an emetic on an off, while he's puking up his toenails he'll be too busy to mess with battleplans. Or much of anything for a bit.

Enough time to set things up properly.

True enough but the line between sick and dead was not hard to miss in a medieval time frame.
Although the reports of arsenic and lead poisoing indicate people were somewhat skilled at making others sick in this time period.

[Reika]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

0mar wrote...

It doesn't matter. Cailan is Loghain's lord and master. His word is law and should have been followed. Feredeln isn't a ****ing democracy, it's a monarchy. He rules by divine authority.

Wrong on so many counts.

Fereldan is a proto democracy in many regards. As in the Freeholders picking their Bann. Banns, Teyrns, and Arl`s then pick the king.
Fereldan is not a ABSOLUTE MONARCHY in the style of say France was.

Calian had the support of the Bannorn, and the power of the Therin bloodline on his side. Not the maker.
In Ferldan a king is not god, and if he acted like that then the Bannorn stops supporting him.

Calian was a naive, glory bound fool who caused his own death.

I would say Orlais is much more represenative of France's style of government. Ferelden reminds me more of the old Scottish and Irish erm, tribes I guess you'd say, handled chosing their leaders. There was emphasis on passing rule down through bloodlines, but only if the person proved themselves.

Giggles_Manically wrote...

True enough but the line between sick and dead was not hard to miss in a medieval time frame.
Although
the reports of arsenic and lead poisoing indicate people were somewhat
skilled at making others sick in this time period.

It's not really like our medieval times though. Considering some of the things done by both mages, Tranquil and dwarves. And some of the poisons available to PCs were some pretty interesting things. I can easily see someone with Loghain's connections come up with a non-lethal method of doing something to nubsauce.

Modifié par Reika, 16 septembre 2010 - 03:32 .

[maxernst]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

maxernst wrote...
Okay, that helps close one gaping plot hole...so Howe did have reason to think that at the very least he'd have a powerful supporter.   I still think the whole Ostagar scenario as envisioned is a giant plot hole:

If Cailan won at Ostagar, there would be no witnesses to tell him what happened to the Couslands, and Howe would have told him any story he wished. Plus if Ferelden suffered great casualties at Ostagar, it would think twice before fighting Howe who still has his army.

So I don't think Howe was betting everything on Loghain retreating. Even Loghain didn't decide that until the battle. That probably is the most preferred outcome for Howe, but whether Ostagar was a victory or defeat mattered little to his massacre of the Couslands. It only helped Howe's plan as it emptied Highever of its army.  

Just because there are no witnesses doesn't mean that any story Howe tells will be believed--I don't see anything in the codex that says his reputation is so spotless that no one would ever imagine that he could be capable of lying for personal gain.  There is no way that the castle could have fallen except by treachery.  Its gates and walls weren't broken, so whoever killed the Couslands was invited in. And it's not just Cailan who has to believe it, but also all of the Bann's under Highever.  If Fergus doesn't disappear, what's to stop him from coming back with his forces and retaking Highever?

[Sarah1281]

Just because there are no witnesses doesn't mean that any story Howe tells will be believed--I don't see anything in the codex that says his reputation is so spotless that no one would ever imagine that he could be capable of lying for personal gain. There is no way that the castle could have fallen except by treachery. Its gates and walls weren't broken, so whoever killed the Couslands was invited in. And it's not just Cailan who has to believe it, but also all of the Bann's under Highever. If Fergus doesn't disappear, what's to stop him from coming back with his forces and retaking Highever?

Howe has contacts with the Crows. Besides, it doesn't matter if people doubt Howe's story or not. Presumably, he'd find a way to make it somewhat plausible and would have enough knowledge of the castle to do it and if it is possible for it to have happened the way Howe said it did then there's really no cause to go after him. Note that the nobles only seem interested in going after Highever when they're on the other side of the civil war from Howe (which wouldn't have happened with no dead Cailan) and when talking to a Cousland who would be dead.

[KnightofPhoenix]

maxernst wrote...
Just because there are no witnesses doesn't mean that any story Howe tells will be believed--I don't see anything in the codex that says his reputation is so spotless that no one would ever imagine that he could be capable of lying for personal gain.  There is no way that the castle could have fallen except by treachery.  Its gates and walls weren't broken, so whoever killed the Couslands was invited in. And it's not just Cailan who has to believe it, but also all of the Bann's under Highever.  If Fergus doesn't disappear, what's to stop him from coming back with his forces and retaking Highever?

It doesn't have to be believed. Not saying that Ferelden has a rule of law type system, but a monarch can't act on a lord with only supicion and not evidence to support his claim. So even if Cailan didn't believe Howe, he can't act if he doesn't have proof.

Furthermore, the castle could have been inflitrated via the servant's backdoor. It's not implausible for bandits to decide to rob a castle when its emptied from its army. Or Howe could claim that the Couslands were planing a betrayal. Or maybe there was a mutiny. They may not believe it, but justification doesn't have to be believed, all it needs to do is make it ambiguous, so much so that acting will become difficult. Of course if this was an absolutist monarchy, this wouldn't have been a problem.  

And the banns of highever seemingly do nothing against Howe really. Not from what we know of anyways.

And Fergus could be assassinated before, during, just after the battle. I am sure Howe was planing for this, he couldnt' have possible risked everything on Fergus dying in the battle. 

[blothulfur]

In the icelandic sagas a man is a king when he can go into the "thing" (a scandinavian assembly) and tell everyone that he is and then walk out alive, not saying that ferelden is that extreme but divine right and a big sword trumps just divine right even in the modern day.

[maxernst]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

maxernst wrote...
Just because there are no witnesses doesn't mean that any story Howe tells will be believed--I don't see anything in the codex that says his reputation is so spotless that no one would ever imagine that he could be capable of lying for personal gain.  There is no way that the castle could have fallen except by treachery.  Its gates and walls weren't broken, so whoever killed the Couslands was invited in. And it's not just Cailan who has to believe it, but also all of the Bann's under Highever.  If Fergus doesn't disappear, what's to stop him from coming back with his forces and retaking Highever?

It doesn't have to be believed. Not saying that Ferelden has a rule of law type system, but a monarch can't act on a lord with only supicion and not evidence to support his claim. So even if Cailan didn't believe Howe, he can't act if he doesn't have proof.

And the banns of highever seemingly do nothing against Howe really. Not from what we know of anyways.

And Fergus could be assassinated before, during, just after the battle. I am sure Howe was planing for this, he couldnt' have possible risked everything on Fergus dying in the battle. 

Sure it has to be believed and treason is the only story he can tell.  Otherwise, Fergus inherits Highever, and even if Fergus were assassinated (and wouldn't that look a wee bit suspicious?), Howe may not be the next in line to inherit.  As far as the banns of Highever doing nothing, I expect that most of them, and most of their forces, probably died at Ostagar, leaving them in no position to protest. And who says they don't?  There's a civil war going on...maybe a lot of the rebels are former vassals of Bryce Cousland.

And monarchs certainly could act without proof, if they so desired.  There's no independent judiciary in Ferelden as far as we know.  It might be politically risky, but hardly unprecedented.

[0mar]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

maxernst wrote...
Just because there are no witnesses doesn't mean that any story Howe tells will be believed--I don't see anything in the codex that says his reputation is so spotless that no one would ever imagine that he could be capable of lying for personal gain.  There is no way that the castle could have fallen except by treachery.  Its gates and walls weren't broken, so whoever killed the Couslands was invited in. And it's not just Cailan who has to believe it, but also all of the Bann's under Highever.  If Fergus doesn't disappear, what's to stop him from coming back with his forces and retaking Highever?

It doesn't have to be believed. Not saying that Ferelden has a rule of law type system, but a monarch can't act on a lord with only supicion and not evidence to support his claim. So even if Cailan didn't believe Howe, he can't act if he doesn't have proof.

Furthermore, the castle could have been inflitrated via the servant's backdoor. It's not implausible for bandits to decide to rob a castle when its emptied from its army. Or Howe could claim that the Couslands were planing a betrayal. Or maybe there was a mutiny. They may not believe it, but justification doesn't have to be believed, all it needs to do is make it ambiguous, so much so that acting will become difficult. Of course if this was an absolutist monarchy, this wouldn't have been a problem.  

And the banns of highever seemingly do nothing against Howe really. Not from what we know of anyways.

And Fergus could be assassinated before, during, just after the battle. I am sure Howe was planing for this, he couldnt' have possible risked everything on Fergus dying in the battle. 

In Awakenings, you can execute a nobleman for apparently no reason.  There is zero evidence against him, yet you still have the authority of life and death.

[KnightofPhoenix]

maxernst wrote...


Sure it has to be believed and treason is the only story he can tell.  Otherwise, Fergus inherits Highever, and even if Fergus were assassinated (and wouldn't that look a wee bit suspicious?), Howe may not be the next in line to inherit. 

All Couslands are dead, he made sure that even Oswen is dead. I don't think there was anyoe ein line after the massacre, had everything gone out according to plan.

maxernst wrote...
As far as the banns of Highever doing nothing, I expect that most of them, and most of their forces, probably died at Ostagar, leaving them in no position to protest. And who says they don't?  There's a civil war going on...maybe a lot of the rebels are former vassals of Bryce Cousland.

Which is precisely why it's the perfect opportunity for Howe, Highever is emptied.
As for the civil war, the only military action we are aware off is Bannorn raids on Highever. That's it. The main rebels were the banns of the bannorn and there is no mention of Highever rebels. Riots on the otherhand happened, but they happened everywhere in the kingdom.

maxernst wrote...
And monarchs certainly could act without proof, if they so desired.  There's no independent judiciary in Ferelden as far as we know.  It might be politically risky, but hardly unprecedented.

Not a monarchy like in Ferelden, especially not against an Arl.
And Loghain says that the senechals should have judged Howe for his crimes which shows that there is some semblance of a judiciary.

@ Omar. You execute a bann of little significance in a time of crisis. That's not an Arl who rules one of the most important Arlings.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 septembre 2010 - 10:25 .

[Bahlgan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

0mar wrote...

It doesn't matter. Cailan is Loghain's lord and master. His word is law and should have been followed. Feredeln isn't a ****ing democracy, it's a monarchy. He rules by divine authority.

I just love the obligatory 'Cailan is King and so if he wanted Loghain to march his men down one at a time for the darkspawn to eat then Loghain should have ****ing done it because that's how a monarchy works!' opinion.

Newsflash: It doesn't matter if it's a monarchy, a republic, a democracy, a whatever. Regardless of what Loghain should have done in this situation, you can't blindly follow your leader to the ends of the Earth. Sooner or later you have to draw a line.

You speak of this as if you never heard of this theory.

As much annoyed as you may be, it doesn't mean that that it never happened before. Just think of all the real life examples throughout our history of which countries used an absolute monarchy rule. Not saying it is entirely a good thing, in fact I think it is horrible, but your conclusion is NOT an entirely new thing either.

And much as you would enjoy throwing Cailan into the water, he is not the worst king just about anyone can think of. Thank the "Maker" he wasn't some sort of tyrant like Loghain who hanged all those who stepped up against him and his wrongfully acquired regency. If the public says it's wrong, then it's wrong. Power to the people!!

In Awakenings, you can execute a nobleman for apparently no reason.  There is zero evidence against him, yet you still have the authority of life and death.

Whoah talk about unorthodox and paranoid.

When does this happen? Is this a quest or cinematic of some sort?

Modifié par Bahlgan, 16 septembre 2010 - 11:14 .

[Sarah1281]

You speak of this as if you never heard of this theory.



As much annoyed as you may be, it doesn't mean that that it never happened before. Just think of all the real life examples throughout our history of which countries used an absolute monarchy rule. Not saying it is entirely a good thing, in fact I think it is horrible, but your conclusion is NOT an entirely new thing either.



And much as you would enjoy throwing Cailan into the water, he is not the worst king just about anyone can think of. Thank the "Maker" he wasn't some sort of tyrant like Loghain who hanged all those who stepped up against him and his wrongfully acquired regency. If the public says it's wrong, then it's wrong. Power to the people!!

You do realize that I specifically said I wasn't talking about Cailan in specific, right? Just the idea that 'Cailan was King so that ends all discussion and Loghain should have done what he said' is rather silly. While I realize that Cailan DID NOT DO THIS, had he decided that they were all going to surrender to the darkspawn and be eaten or turned into broodmothers then - King or no King - Loghain would have had a responsibility to ignore this and try to find a better option. Even had Ferelden been an absolute monarchy, at some point a line needs to be drawn. If power is being abused so blatantly, go find a freaking line.



All I was saying with that post was that 'Cailan is the King' should not be the end all be all and those other factors such as whether they could have won, how long Loghain was planning this, whether trying to save Cailan would have been worth the cost, ect. are more important than Cailan's title.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

maxernst wrote...


Sure it has to be believed and treason is the only story he can tell.  Otherwise, Fergus inherits Highever, and even if Fergus were assassinated (and wouldn't that look a wee bit suspicious?), Howe may not be the next in line to inherit. 

All Couslands are dead, he made sure that even Oswen is dead. I don't think there was anyoe ein line after the massacre, had everything gone out according to plan.

All Couslands are NOT dead.  Fergus is very much alive and well - he wasn't at Highever, he was at Ostagar, and off scouting.
So, UNLESS he dies somehow, he inherits Highever - and has pretty much the entire army of Highever to back his claim.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
All Couslands are NOT dead.  Fergus is very much alive and well - he wasn't at Highever, he was at Ostagar, and off scouting.
So, UNLESS he dies somehow, he inherits Highever - and has pretty much the entire army of Highever to back his claim.

Assassins, problem delt with. Howe has contacts with the Antivan crows.
He problably thought that he died at Ostagar anyways, but had Ostagar been a victory, he would have made sure to find some way to eliminate him before he gets back to Highever. Howe is too smart to have not planned Fergus' elimination.

[Sarah1281]

All Couslands are NOT dead. Fergus is very much alive and well - he wasn't at Highever, he was at Ostagar, and off scouting.

So, UNLESS he dies somehow, he inherits Highever - and has pretty much the entire army of Highever to back his claim.

See, this is why people keep saying that had things worked out the way Howe wanted them to, Fergus would have gotten himself killed. Howe had connections with the Crows, after all, and he knew that Fergus was going to be gone when he massacred the Couslands and did NOT know that Ostagar was going to turn out like it did. Why in the world would he just leave it to chance?